To Know is to No AND To No is to Know: The Chthulcene Helps Those Who Help Themselves AND The Chthulcene Helps Those Who Do NOT Help Themselves

For Haraway, and I don’t disagree, the earth is sympoietic (33). To begin to define sympoietic, however, one must first engage in a semantic endeavor of negation that will prove any initial false operand ultimately true. Meaning that any word that indicates toward conceptualizations of a “system” fail because there is nothing real or imagined that is not part of that (sympoietic) system. All you can really do is make up another word for “system” and imaginatively theorize upon it. Not like a snake that consumes itself but a snake that consumes itself and then gives birth to (a simulacra?) of itself — by way of its sympoetic qualities — which, finally, are broadly defined here as a “system” that has no self-defining boundaries, is collectively produced, and all its aspects are interdependent.

*

Haraway seems to do what good rhetoric does: establishes a free-standing axiom to support an argument. Because it’s Theory, however, (capital T), and because of the depth and breadth of not only its investigation but of its sponsor, Duke University, there seems to be a little more panache to it all. It being what seems to be an epistemology: this is what is and this is what is not. More negation. Or perhaps discovery through negation. Or perhaps it’s creation/ rationalization (the very thing that has gotten us into this post-colonial ecological mess) through negation. I don’t know. And I don’t think Haraway does, either. As such, and perhaps to expand upon the title of this post, it just may be that only thing we can “do” is nothing. Practically, and I think when concerning Comp Studies, it’s more practical to do less while improving it. Moreover, and in line with Haraway, the options to choose how we ‘see’ and ‘think’ are there, too. They use the word trouble. And go into its etymology. I think manipulate might be a better word. It’s from post-classical Latin manipulare, from the 11th century (or earlier), and is defined as ‘to lead by the hand’. To do the leading is the implication of having both purpose and direction. (Insert here the magic of discourse.) Moreover, maybe even touch of that hand will communicate everything will be ok….Just don’t ask me what ok means.

*

All “this” reminded me of two things. First, a little saying: Everything we really need to learn and know is well-conveyed in about ten or twelve children’s tales. The second thing is this parable. It’s about the last three people in the world (who are men in the allegory, but I like to imagine them as women.) Here is a link to a recording of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3v_R9CaRU